Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Harsh86_Patel

[Merged] Gobekli Tepe

327 posts in this topic

Very interesting stuff Abramelin. I was hoping someone would bring up Nevali Cori sometime ... and i hadn't heard of Karahan Tepe... Both very similar to Gobekli tepe, but both being younger versions with smaller T shaped pillars?

"Karahan Tepe, a site only discovered in the late 1990s and still awaiting full excavation. This is located near Sogmatar on the Harran Plain, and dates back 11,000 years at least."

READ, goddamnit. read.

.

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say I didn't see the name on the article, I said I did not know it was named. Unlike some people, this is not the forum I regularly read and I didn't notice the name because honestly other than "oh how interesting, a very old temple" I didn't find the article so engrossing I felt the need to memorize it before posting it.

I thought I was being polite by passing on an article posted to me on another site. I remembered seeing a section on UM about ancient history so I thought you would find it interesting. Instead of saying something like "Yes, this has been covered, thanks" you have wasted far too much time with your rudeness.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't you all stop the bickering and stop proving yourself being in your right for once, goddamnit??

I posted on topic, now go read what I wrote, and reply to THAT.

OK?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abramelin, do I note a hesitant thought that we are to find some monstrous evil to be yet uncovered at GT ? Was GT buried to hide evidence of something despicable ? Was GT even buried by the people who created it, or did some other culture do that to obliterate the memories of a civilization (if that is what is was) that practiced human sacrifice ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abramelin, do I note a hesitant thought that we are to find some monstrous evil to be yet uncovered at GT ? Was GT buried to hide evidence of something despicable ? Was GT even buried by the people who created it, or did some other culture do that to obliterate the memories of a civilization (if that is what is was) that practiced human sacrifice ?

It almost looks like that, Macro:

Çayönü in Eastern Anatolia

It is characteristic that this most ancient of all known class societies should present itself to us as a patriarchal society (Hauptmann 1991: 161/3, 2002: 266 f., Özdoğan 1999b: 234/2) of bitter destructiveness: the gloomy temples dug into the mountain like caves served to maintain power in a society that was obviously rigidly organized (Özdoğan 1994: 43, 1999b: 231) through open terror: human sacrifices. In the temples of all building levels huge amounts of blood were shed which the excavators retrieved in thick crusts on daggers, altars or draining funnels which were designed specifically for that purpose (Schirmer 1983: 466 f. and footnote 5, see also 475, Schirmer 1990: 382, 384, Hole 2000: 200 f.). The analysis of the isolated blood pigment haemoglobin revealed that it was generally human blood (Loy and Wood 1989, Wood 1998). In the chambers of one of these temples there were the skulls of more than 70 people and parts of skeletons of more than 400 different individuals (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1989: 71/2) "neatly stacked up to the ceiling" (Schirmer 1990: 382). The situation in the other settlements of Eastern Anatolia was comparable.

However, whereas in other parts of the globe the development of this kind of class society proceeded further (cf. parallels to Central American civilizations), history in Southeast Anatolia took a completely different turn.

http://www.urkommuni...k_en.html#_ftn3

.

Edited by Abramelin
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Karahan Tepe, a site only discovered in the late 1990s and still awaiting full excavation. This is located near Sogmatar on the Harran Plain, and dates back 11,000 years at least."

READ, goddamnit. read.

.

Well, EXCUUUUUUSE me! ;) i had READ somewhere that Nevali Cori was dated about a thousand years younger than Gobekli tepe... and i also READ that the T shaped pillars there were smaller. Aren't parts of Gobelki tepe dated at 12,000 years old? which would make what has been dated at Karahan tepe (11,000 years) .. possibly a little younger,,, as i questioned????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, EXCUUUUUUSE me! ;) i had READ somewhere that Nevali Cori was dated about a thousand years younger than Gobekli tepe... and i also READ that the T shaped pillars there were smaller. Aren't parts of Gobelki tepe dated at 12,000 years old? which would make what has been dated at Karahan tepe (11,000 years) .. possibly a little younger,,, as i questioned????

"Karahan Tepe, a site only discovered in the late 1990s and still awaiting full excavation. This is located near Sogmatar on the Harran Plain, and dates back 11,000 years at least."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neo-Lithics 2-3/00 (2000?)

A Newsletter of Aouthwest Asian Lithics Research

In the light of all these finds it seems that Karahan Tepe, the

upper levels of Göpekli Tepe and Nevali Çori 111 (Schmidt 1998b,

1998c: Fig. 1) are contemporaneous. Since there are not any Palmyra

Points (Schmidt 1996) or Çayönü Tools at the Karahail

settlement, it is possible for us to date this settlement as MPPNB.

http://www.exoriente.org/docs/00019.pdf

+++++

Hamzan Tepe in the light of new finds

Bahattin Çelik

Department of Archaeology, University of Harran

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf37/37_22.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Archaeological Site of Göbeklitepe

(2012)

In the immediate vicinity of Göbeklitepe there are three more sites with similar, small T-shaped pillars visible on the surface, but neither at Sefer Tepe nor at Karahan or Hamzan Tepe excavations was conducted so far. It is clear, that these places form an inner circle of sites belonging to the cultic community of Göbeklitepe, but this community was not constricted to these sites.

Throughout Upper Mesopotamia hints at the religious ideology of Göbeklitepe can be found in the material culture of settlement sites, while the case of another exclusive sanctuary remains unknown. All these sites date to the PPNA/Early PPNB, in the second half of 10th and 9th Millennia B.C. and all can be described as settled hunter-gatherer settlement sites, with a spatial division of residential and specialized workshop areas and a growing importance given to "Sondergebäude" (special buildings) used for communal and ritual purposes, including open courtyards as communal space.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5612/

+++++

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) is a division of the Neolithic developed by Dame Kathleen Kenyon during her archaeological excavations at Jericho in the southern Levant region.

The period is dated to between ca. 10700 and ca. 8000 BP or 8700 - 6000 BCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_B

+++++

Neo-Lithics_2.04 24.01.2005

The only architectural remains so far discovered at

Hamzan Tepe are a section of a wall constructed of several

stone layers and a stele of T-shape (Fig. 4). Stelae of

the similar type have been unearthed at Nevalý Çori,

Göbekli Tepe, Adiyaman-Kilisik (Hauptmann 2000: Fig.

8-10; Verhoeven 2001: 9, Fig. 1 a-d) and Karahan Tepe.

Our stele is smaller in scale and is reminiscent of the

stelae on the side walls of the temple at Nevalý Çori

(Hauptmann 1993: Fig. 7) and the stelae of the second

phase at Göbekli Tepe (Schmidt 2002: 24-25, Fig. 1).

The stele from Hamzan Tepe also shares certain characteristics

with those from Karahan Tepe (Çelik 2000a:

7) and indicates that the temple worship tradition as evidenced

at Göbekli Tepe, Nevalý Çori, Karahan Tepe, and

Adiyaman-Kilisik also existed at Hamzan Tepe.

The section of Hamzan Tepe settlement that is visible

today is similar to two areas that have been excavated

in the southwestern section of Göbekli Tepe. There the

earth above the bedrock is 10-40 cm thick. In the first

area were found a stele with a crouching animal and its

base in situ (Beile-Bohn et al. 1998: Fig. 30). The second

excavation area contained a temple and pool-like

pits carved into the bedrock and smaller round depressions

forming a circle (Beile-Bohn et al. 1998: Fig. 20).

Both areas have also produced numerous flint artefacts

(Schmidt 1997: 77). Flint artefacts found on the surface,

pool-like pits and depressions carved into the bedrock

at Göbekli Tepe are close parallels with those from

Hamzan Tepe.

http://www.exoriente.org/docs/00048.pdf

+++++

Hamzan Tepe

Settlement site belonging to the Urfa culture dating to about 8000 BCE, which also relates to the Göbeckli Tepe and Nevali Cori site. Unfortunately the site lies under the Şanlıurfa rubbish dump and is largely destroyed.

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=14997

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think at this point a map wouldn't hurt:

ANATOLIA.jpg

Fig. 1. Location of sites mentioned in the text. 1: Aghios Petros, 2: Aşıklıhöyük, 3: Aswad, 4: Baja, 5: Cafer Höyük, 6: Can Hasan III, 7: Çatalhöyük, 8: Çayönü, 9: Dhuweila II, 10: Tell es Sinn, 11: Ghoraifé, 12: Gilgal I/III, 13: Göbekli Tepe, 14: Gritille Höyük, 15: Gürcütepe II, 16: Hagoshrim, 17: Hallan Çemi Tepesi, 18: Halula, 19: Hatoula, 20: Hayaz Höyük, 21: Horvat Galil, 22: Jebel Naja, 23: Jerf el Ahmar, 24: Karim Shahir, 25: M’lefaat, 26: Magzaliya, 27: Mersin/Yumuktepe, 28: Mezraa-Teleilat, 29: Mureybit, 30: Mylouthkia, 31: Nacharini, 32: Nahal Oren, 33: Nemrik 9, 34: Nevalı Çori/Hamzan Tepe, 35: Pınarbaşı A, 36: Qdeir 1, 37: Qermez Dere, 38: Sabi Abyad II, 39: Shillourokambos, 40: Tsur Nathan, 41: Wadi Faynan 16, 42: Wadi Jilat 13, 43: Zahrat edh-Dhra.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440310003638

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did some other culture do that to obliterate the memories of a civilization (if that is what is was) that practiced human sacrifice ?

Doubt it.

Recently, it was found that the site was buried multiple times. This is a likely indicator that the culture that built it buried it between uses.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubt it.

Recently, it was found that the site was buried multiple times. This is a likely indicator that the culture that built it buried it between uses.

Harte

Considering the suggestion of revolution and war in an earlier post, it may have happened several times that the enemy who buried the structure got beaten and driven out, and the original occupants dug out their temple or whatever it was, only to be buried again by their enemy when that enemy returned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies for coming as a terse, cad dickish guy.

You see, i call a spade a spade, because its a spade.

Sorry if i have hurt anybody's feelings.

I am sorry to say that i will still call a spade a spade.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, instead of dickish, now you're a card dealer?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevalı Çori was an early Neolithic settlement on the middle Euphrates, in the province of Şanlıurfa (Urfa), eastern Turkey. The site is famous for having revealed some of the world's most ancient known temples and monumental sculpture. Together with the site of Göbekli Tepe, it has revolutionised scientific understanding of the Eurasian Neolithic.

The settlement was located about 490 m above sea level, in the foothills of the Taurus Mountains, on both banks of the Kantara stream, a tributary of the Euphrates.

The site was examined from 1983 to 1991 in the context of rescue excavations during the erection of the Atatürk Dam below Samsat. Excavations were conducted by a team from the University of Heidelberg under the direction of Professor Harald Hauptmann. Together with numerous other archaeological sites in the vicinity, Nevalı Çori has since been inundated by the dammed waters of the Euphrates.

Nevalı Çori could be placed within the local relative chronology on the basis of its flint tools. The occurrence of narrow unretouched Byblos-type points places it on Oliver Aurenche's Phase 3, i.e. early to middle PPNB. Some tools indicate continuity into Phase 4, which is similar in date to Late PPNB. An even finer chronological distinction within Phase 3 is permitted by the settlement's architecture; the house type with underfloor channels, typical of Nevalı Çori strata I-IV, also characterises the "Intermediate Layer" at Çayönü, while the differing plan of the single building in stratum V, House 1, is more clearly connected to the buildings of the "Cellular Plan Layer" at Çayönü.

In terms of absolute dates, 4 radiocarbon dates have been determined for Nevalı Çori. Three are from Stratum II and date it with some certainty to the second half of the 9th millennium BC, which coincides with early dates from Çayönü and with Mureybet IVA and thus supports the relative chronology above. The fourth dates to the 10th millennium, which, if correct, would indicate the presence of an extremely early phase of PPNB at Nevalı Çori.

The local limestone was carved into numerous statues and smaller sculptures, including a more than life-sized bare human head with a snake or sikha-like tuft. There is also a statue of a bird. Some of the pillars also bore reliefs, including ones of human hands. The free-standing anthropomorphic figures of limestone excavated at Nevalı Çori belong to the earliest known life-size sculptures. Comparable material has been found at Göbekli Tepe.

Several hundred small clay figurines (about 5 cm high), most of them depicting humans, have been interpreted as votive offerings. They were fired at temperatures between 500-600°C, which suggests the development of ceramic firing technology before the advent of pottery proper.

Some of the houses contained depositions of human skulls and incomplete skeletons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevali_Cori

+++++

The dating of Çayönü is placed in the Pre Ceramic (=Pre Pottery) Neolitic B or PPNB which starts between 9100-8000 BCE and ends aruound 6200 BCE. In the bottom layer (ca. 8800-8500 BCE) it can be shown that hunter-gatherers has settled and lived here. In the layer above (ca. 8000 BCE) they found sowing seed, so agriculture was practiced. Around 7300 BCE there's proof of flocks of sheep, so stock-breeding was practiced.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87ay%C3%B6n%C3%BC

+++++

On a certain day 9 200 years ago the manorial houses at the north side of the large square in Çayönü were burnt down, and this happened so fast that the owners were not able to save any of their treasures (Davis 1998: 259/2, 260/2).

The temple was torn down and burnt, and even the floor was ripped open (Schirmer 1983: 467, 1990: 384), the stone pillars around the free space were taken down and the taller of them were broken up (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1989: 74, Özdoğan 1999a: fig. 41, fig. 42).

The place itself - previously maintained and kept meticulously clean for more than 1000 years (and thus making it more than 10,200 yrs old) - was converted into a municipal waste dump (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1989: 72/1, Özdoğan 1997: 15). The ruins of the manorial houses in the eastern part of the settlement were demolished.

Instead, new residential houses were erected. Subsequently, the slums in the west disappeared. They disappeared for good, but where the manorial houses had burnt the new Çayönü was erected (see sequence of plans in Özdoğan 1999a: fig. 35, fig. 46, fig. 47). The new houses were comparable in size to the old manors (Schirmer 1988: 148 f.) but there were no more houses or shacks built to an inferior standard (see sequence of plans in Özdoğan 1999a: fig. 35, fig. 46, fig. 47).

In all houses, work was done (Özdoğan 1999a: 53/1) and all hints to social differences were erased (Özdoğan 1999a: fig. 47, fig. 50, also see Schirmer 1988: 148 f.).

http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html

+++++

Archaeologists use the word terrazzo to describe the floors of early neolithic buildings (PPN A and B, ca. 9,000–8,000 BC) in Western Asia, that are constructed of burnt lime and clay, colored red with ochre and polished. The embedded crushed limestone gives it a slightly mottled appearance. The use of fire to produce burnt lime, which was also used for the hafting of implements, predates the use of pottery by almost a thousand years. In the early Neolithic settlement of Cayönü in eastern Turkey ca. 90 m² of terrazzo floors have been uncovered. The floors of the PPN B settlement of Nevali Cori measure about 80 m². They are 15 cm thick, and contain about 10-15 % lime.

These floors are almost impenetrable to moisture and very durable, but their construction involved a high input of energy. Gourdin and Kingery (1975) estimate that about 5 times the amount of wood is needed to produce the required amount of lime, but recent experiments by Affonso and Pernicka have shown that only the double amount is needed. But that would still amount to 4.5 metric tons of dry wood for the floors in Cayönü, in what is an only sparsely wooded environment today.

Other sites with terrazzo floors include Nevali Cori, Göbekli Tepe, Jericho, and Kastros (Cyprus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrazzo

+++++

According to Der Spiegel[1] of either 6 March or 3 June 2006, the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne[2] has discovered that the genetically common ancestor of 68 contemporary types of cereal still grows as a wild plant on the slopes of Mount Karaca (Karaca Dağ), which is located in close vicinity to Çayönü. (Compare to information on cereal use in PPNA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87ay%C3%B6n%C3%BC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was overtaken by invading forces, why would they bury it instead of ruin it? (no pun intended).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I found out for this thread, the so called 'temples' in ancient south-eastern Anatolia were not ceremoniously buried or something, but buried to hide the temples of the hated enemy. In some cases the temples were totally destroyed.

Something truelly nasty was going on around 10,000 BCE

What was it? A war between invading hunter-gatherers and the new agriculturists?

Were the caught invaders sacrificed on altars?

Did the invaders eventually win the war and take over the culture (for instance by eventually becoming agriculturists themselves), and did the former inhabitants flee southwards to what would become Phoenicia and/or Canaan (continuing their practice of human sacrifice (think "Moloch" of the much later Canaanites/Phoenicians)?

It almost sounds like a precursor of the much later Biblical myth of Cain and Abel / Qayin (קין) and Havel (הבל)............ Çayönü and XYZ?? According to some Cain symbolizes the first agriculturist, while Abel would be either a shepherd or a hunter-gatherer.

Who could possibly have been those invaders of the ancient Anatolian civilization?

I think there is not much choice: I think it must have been the Natufians who were still very much hunter-gatherers, and living in what is now Syria, Lebanon and Israel (plus Sinai).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was overtaken by invading forces, why would they bury it instead of ruin it? (no pun intended).

Well, read what I posted:

Çayönü:

The temple was torn down and burnt, and even the floor was ripped open (Schirmer 1983: 467, 1990: 384), the stone pillars around the free space were taken down and the taller of them were broken up (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1989: 74, Özdoğan 1999a: fig. 41, fig. 42).

And the Göbekli Tepe temple was built using very heavy T-shaped stones, so they just buried it. They didn't want to break their backs trying to pull them down.

It could also have been a way of ceremoniously burying the enemy in a "grave".

,

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turkey/Anatolia appears to be an interesting place for another reason:

Indo-European languages originate in Anatolia

The Indo-European languages belong to one of the widest spread language families of the world. For the last two millenia, many of these languages have been written, and their history is relatively clear. But controversy remains about the time and place of the origins of the family. A large international team, including MPI researcher Michael Dunn, reports the results of an innovative Bayesian phylogeographic analysis of Indo-European linguistic and spatial data. Their paper appears this week in Science.

The majority view in historical linguistics is that the homeland of Indo-European is located in the Pontic steppes (present day Ukraine) around 6,000 years ago. The evidence for this comes from linguistic paleontology: in particular, certain words to do with the technology of wheeled vehicles are arguably present across all the branches of the Indo-European family; and archaeology tells us that wheeled vehicles arose no earlier than this date. The minority view links the origins of Indo-European with the spread of farming from Anatolia 8,000 to 9,500 years ago.

http://archaeologyne...iginate-in.html

Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family

There are two competing hypotheses for the origin of the Indo-European language family. The conventional view places the homeland in the Pontic steppes about 6000 years ago. An alternative hypothesis claims that the languages spread from Anatolia with the expansion of farming 8000 to 9500 years ago. We used Bayesian phylogeographic approaches, together with basic vocabulary data from 103 ancient and contemporary Indo-European languages, to explicitly model the expansion of the family and test these hypotheses. We found decisive support for an Anatolian origin over a steppe origin. Both the inferred timing and root location of the Indo-European language trees fit with an agricultural expansion from Anatolia beginning 8000 to 9500 years ago. These results highlight the critical role that phylogeographic inference can play in resolving debates about human prehistory.

http://www.sciencema...nt/337/6097/957

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just seems odd to bury something no matter how hard it would be to pull down. Burying it would have taken a heck of a lot of time. They destroyed some and not others which makes me wonder if they were actually afraid to destroy the one that they did not.

Something like we don't want to worship you...but we don't want to p*** you of either. So were just going to shovel some dirt on you. heh.

I guess what I am asking, is there anything significant about the one they buried besides the difficult to pull down T's?

Intentionally burying something on that scale just seems like almost as monumental a feat as building it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A thread about how many threads we have about this thread?

Threadception.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A thread about how many threads we have about this thread?

Threadception.

But this one has more new info than all the ones before combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just seems odd to bury something no matter how hard it would be to pull down. Burying it would have taken a heck of a lot of time. They destroyed some and not others which makes me wonder if they were actually afraid to destroy the one that they did not.

Something like we don't want to worship you...but we don't want to p*** you of either. So were just going to shovel some dirt on you. heh.

I guess what I am asking, is there anything significant about the one they buried besides the difficult to pull down T's?

Intentionally burying something on that scale just seems like almost as monumental a feat as building it.

What is odd...

The Aztecs cut out the still beating hearts of their captives, like many thousands a month. Just to make sure the sun would rise again, or something.

Odd, yeah.

Human nature, yeah.

I can only answer you by what I find online. I do have some ideas, but that's about it.

Maybe burying the main temple of your enemy was the ultimate humiliation 11,000 years ago?

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a certain day 9 200 years ago the manorial houses at the north side of the large square in Çayönü were burnt down, and this happened so fast that the owners were not able to save any of their treasures (Davis 1998: 259/2, 260/2).

The temple was torn down and burnt, and even the floor was ripped open (Schirmer 1983: 467, 1990: 384), the stone pillars around the free space were taken down and the taller of them were broken up (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1989: 74, Özdoğan 1999a: fig. 41, fig. 42).

The place itself - previously maintained and kept meticulously clean for more than 1000 years (and thus making it more than 10,200 yrs old) - was converted into a municipal waste dump (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1989: 72/1, Özdoğan 1997: 15). The ruins of the manorial houses in the eastern part of the settlement were demolished.

Instead, new residential houses were erected. Subsequently, the slums in the west disappeared. They disappeared for good, but where the manorial houses had burnt the new Çayönü was erected (see sequence of plans in Özdoğan 1999a: fig. 35, fig. 46, fig. 47). The new houses were comparable in size to the old manors (Schirmer 1988: 148 f.) but there were no more houses or shacks built to an inferior standard (see sequence of plans in Özdoğan 1999a: fig. 35, fig. 46, fig. 47).

In all houses, work was done (Özdoğan 1999a: 53/1) and all hints to social differences were erased (Özdoğan 1999a: fig. 47, fig. 50, also see Schirmer 1988: 148 f.).

http://www.urkommuni...hueyuek_en.html

I wonder whether this was an instance of a successful civil uprising rather than an invasion. The continuity of the locale, instead of its complete destruction might well be an indicator that people of the same ilk caused the specific damage to some areas and the subsequent re-building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder whether this was an instance of a successful civil uprising rather than an invasion. The continuity of the locale, instead of its complete destruction might well be an indicator that people of the same ilk caused the specific damage to some areas and the subsequent re-building.

Yes, that was the most probable scenario, but then 'my' Natufians wouldn't fit in, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.